DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are pending and are subject to this office action. Claims 1 and 5 are amended, claim 4 is canceled, and claim 7 is withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the Applicant’s response filed on 12/29/2025 containing amendments and remarks to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5-8, filed 12/29/2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to require that the semi-solid medium part is adsorbed to a porous material which was previously presented in claim 4, and that the porous material has pores with an average maximum diameter value of 0.01-1.5mm and a specific surface area of 100 to 500 cm2/g which was not previously presented. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of a combination of newly found prior art and previously applied prior art.
The rejections below are maintained and modified where necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujita (EP 2733193 A1) in view of Takano (US 20060191546 A1) and Richardson (US 20240277029 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujita discloses a cigarette (50, Fig. 2, [0050]), comprising:
A filter (54, “filter part”, [0041]),
Tipping paper (56, “paper tube part”) circumscribing the filter (54, [0045]), and;
Flavorant carrying low adsorbent particles (FLAP) formed of a low adsorbent core particle (“porous material”) having a flavor generating medium adsorbed to the surface ([0014, 0043]).
The low adsorbent core particle (“porous material”) has a specific surface area of less than 700m2/g which exhibits little absorption of components in the mainstream smoke and has a small effect of the smoking flavor ([0015]). The range taught by the prior art overlaps with the claimed range and is therefore considered prima facie obvious.
The flavor generating medium comprises a flavor holding medium which contains the flavor such that it does not volatilize in storage ([0036]).
Fujita does not explicitly disclose the flavor generating medium adsorbed to the core particle (porous material) is a semi solid medium part.
However, Richardson, directed to an aerosol generating composition (abstract), discloses:
An aerosol generating material in the form of a semi-solid such as a gel comprising a gelling agent (“semi-solidifying agent”, [0079]).
The aerosol generating material may comprise an active substance such as nicotine, as well as a flavorant, and an aerosol former ([0079, 0094, 0105-0107]).
Providing the aerosol generating material in the form of a gel allows flavorings to be stabilized and have a good shelf life ([0092]).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujita by substituting the flavor generating medium with the gel/semisolid aerosol forming material as taught by Richardson because both Fujita and Richardson are directed to aerosol generating articles, Fujita discloses the flavor generating medium prevents volatilization of flavors in storage, Richardson discloses a gel aerosol generating material formed with a gelling agent which allows stabilization of flavors in storage, and this involves applying a known gel aerosol forming material to a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Richardson discloses the aerosol generating material is capable of generating an aerosol when heated, irradiated, or energized in another way ([0079]). A “non heating type smoking article” is interpreted as a smoking article that can generate an aerosol without heating. Therefore, the cigarette (50) disclosed by Fujita comprising the aerosol generating material ([0079]) disclosed by Richardson is considered to be a non-heating type smoking article as the aerosol generating material is capable of generating an aerosol without heating.
Fujita or Richardson do not explicitly disclose the porous material has an average maximum diameter of 0.01 to 1.5mm.
However, Takano, directed to a nicotine holder (1, Fig. 6), discloses:
Liquid absorbent granules (34) filled with a nicotine solution, the liquid absorbent granules (34) having an average diameter of 0.1µm or more so that the granules can contain a sufficient quantity of nicotine solution (Fig. 6, [0070, 0073]).
Takano does not explicitly disclose the average maximum diameter value of the pores. The average maximum diameter value is interpreted as the average diameter of the largest pores in the porous material. A person having ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect granules having pores with an average diameter of greater than 0.1µm to include embodiments where the average maximum diameter value of the pores overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01 to 1.5 mm and is therefore considered prima facie obvious. Applicant has not shown that the claimed average maximum diameter value of 0.01 to 1.5mm has unexpected and superior results, and thus the prior art teaching of a diameter range that overlaps the claimed range would reasonably read on embodiments in which an average maximum diameter may overlap said claimed range. If the applicant were to persuasively demonstrate criticality and unexpected results of the claimed range, the rejection would most likely be overcome.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to modify Fujita, in view of Richardson, by providing the granules with an average pore size of 0.1µm or more as taught by Takano, because both Fujita and Takano are directed to aerosol generating articles, Takano discloses an average pore size of 0.1µm or greater allows the granules to hold a sufficient quantity of nicotine solution, and this involves applying a known average pore diameter to an absorbent material in a similar aerosol generating article to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Richardson discloses the aerosol generating material may include an aerosol former such as propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, or triethylene glycol ([0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Richardson discloses the gelling agent comprises one or more of alginate, pectin, starch, cellulose, cellulose derivatives, and combinations thereof ([0082]).
Regarding claim 5, Fujita discloses the low absorbent core particle is formed of silica ([0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Fujita discloses filter (54) comprises cellulose acetate ([0041-0045]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MORGAN FAITH DEZENDORF whose telephone number is (571)272-0155. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-430pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Philip Louie can be reached at (571) 270-1241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/M.F.D./Examiner, Art Unit 1755
/PHILIP Y LOUIE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1755